[단독] 정부는 출산율 반등 전망… 美연구소선 ‘불가’ 판단 기재부 의뢰 美 싱크탱크 보고서 정부 “합계출산율 2040년 1.27” 韓 10년간 감소폭 32국 중 ‘일등’ “중·고소득 국가선 급반등 어렵다”/ 세계일보 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 415 공동정범, 이준석과 하태경을 반드시 축출해야 한다 (이들은 준선거사범) 스콧 인간과 자유 이야기 https://youtu.be/yKn9We1aaiI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 아시아경제 최재형, 이재명 기본소득 공약에 "로빈 후드처럼 의적 흉내" 자산 가격 상승으로 인한 이익은 불로소득이 아니라 평가이익이다. 평가이익에는 과세할 수 없다. 언제부터 우리나라에 부동산 보유를 처벌하는 법이 생겼는가. 이는 사실상 정부가 국민의 재산을 빼앗겠다는 발상이다. 로빈 후드처럼 국민의 재산을 훔쳐다가 의적 흉내를 내려는 것은 아닌지 의심스럽다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 헌법도 과학도 무시한 ‘방역 독재’ 김태규 변호사 前 부산지법 부장판사 강력한 감염 방지책 당연해도 의학적·절차적 정당성 갖춰야 계엄보다 더 쉽게 기본권 제한 주먹구구 대책에 ‘文데믹’ 분노 백신 보릿고개, 민노총엔 쩔쩔 독일선 ‘방역 위반 과태료’ 違憲 / 문화일보 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [심층분석] 위기의 국방부, 한국군은 ‘당나라군’ 고성혁 미래한국 군사전문 기자 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 말로는 회고록, 실제론 北 선전물… 김일성 우상책 ‘세기와 더불어’ 버젓이 판매 제주 4.3, 여순 사건을 '의거'라 표현하며… "김일성 투쟁 공적 인정돼야" 주장 책 내용 사실과 전혀 달라 역사적 가치 없어… 대법원 2011년 ‘이적표현물’ 판결 출판사 ‘민족사랑방’처벌 대상… 포털, 쇼핑몰, 온라인 서점 모두 처벌될 수 있어 전경웅 기자 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 황교안이 "4.15총선 특검"을 주장했다. 그러나 조중동은 역시 침묵했다. 프리덤뉴스 이상로 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 사전투표일~재검표 실시 이후, 선거에서 일어난 모든 것 / 목표 달성을 위해 누가가, 무엇을, 어떻게 했는가 / 단계 단계마다 이루어진 개입들 / 증거과 분석 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/rMoGAQKTf58 바실리아를 비롯한 여러분의 노력으로 문 정권이 어떤 방식으로 부정선거를 저질렀는지, 거의 완벽하게 진상을 밝혀 놓았다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 재검표 현장에 있었던 40년 인쇄업자의 검증 깜놀 [인쇄업자] 이봉규 티비 https://youtu.be/oc5qUn3-330 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 민주제가 독재로 가는 방법 평등과 다수의 통치가 민주제의 두가지 근본 원칙이다. 그리고 민주제는 자유주의적일 수도, 비자유주의적일 수도 있다. “정부의 권력은 어떻게 행사되어야 하나?”라는 질문을 하게 되면, 진정한 자유주의가 도출될 수 있다. 그 대답은 이렇다: 누가 통치하던 정부는 시민 각자가 공동의 선(善)에 부합하는 한, 최대의 자유를 누리도록 해야 한다. 독재로 가는 첫 번째 방법은 혁명으로 자유주의 정부를 엎어버리는 것인데, 러시아 혁명이 그 예이다. 전체주의적 독재로 가는 두 번째 방법은 자유 선거를 통한 방법인데, 이는 1932년 독일에서 일어났다. 이는 플라톤이 대중적인 지도자가 일부 부자들을 적으로 만들고 집권한다는 과정과 거의 동일하다. 민주제가 독재로 가는 세 번째 방법을 말한 사람은 프랑스의 사상가 토크빌이다. 그는 민주 정부하에서 모든 일을 동정적인 정부 기관이 맡아하고, 시민들은 자유와 주도권을 잃고 온순한 가축처럼 자신들의 행복을 추구하는 상황을 예견했다. (한국의 경우는 1, 2의 방법이 동시에 사용되었다고 보아야 한다. 좌파들이 일으킨 촛불 혁명에 겁을 먹은 비박파가 동조해 박 대통령을 탄핵했는데, 이는 좌파 혁명에 의한 민주제 파괴이다. 그 다음으로 그들은 선거를 통해 정권을 잡았다. 물론 이 선거도 드루킹을 비롯한 조작과 우리가 아직 모르는 개입이 있었을 것이다.) Democracy's Road to Tyranny Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Plato, in his Republic, tells us that tyranny arises, as a rule, from democracy. Historically, this process has occurred in three quite different ways. Before describing these several patterns of social change, let us state precisely what we mean by “democracy.” Pondering the question of “Who should rule,” the democrat gives his answer: “the majority of politically equal citizens, either in person or through their representatives.” In other words, equality and majority rule are the two fundamental principles of democracy. A democracy may be either liberal or illiberal. Genuine liberalism is the answer to an entirely different question: How should government be exercised? The answer it provides is: regardless of who rules, government must be carried out in such a way that each person enjoys the greatest amount of freedom, compatible with the common good. This means that an absolute monarchy could be liberal (but hardly democratic) and a democracy could be totalitarian, illiberal, and tyrannical, with a majority brutally persecuting minorities. (We are, of course, using the term “liberal” in the globally accepted version and not in the American sense, which since the New Deal has been totally perverted.) How could a democracy, even an initially liberal one, develop into a totalitarian tyranny? As we said in the beginning, there are three avenues of approach, and in each case the evolution would be of an “organic” nature. The tyranny would evolve from the very character of even a liberal democracy because there is, from the beginning on, a worm in the apple: freedom and equality do not mix, they practically exclude each other. Equality doesn’t exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys. To get a hedge of even height one has to apply pruning shears. To achieve equal scholastic levels in a school one would have to pressure certain students into extra hard work while holding back others. The first road to totalitarian tyranny (though by no means the most frequently used) is the overthrow by force of a liberal democracy through a revolutionary movement, as a rule a party advocating tyranny but unable to win the necessary support in free elections. The stage for such violence is set if the parties represent philosophies so different as to make dialogue and compromise impossible. Clausewitz said that wars are the continuation of diplomacy by other means, and in ideologically divided nations revolutions are truly the continuation of parliamentarism with other means. The result is the absolute rule of one “party” which, having finally achieved complete control, might still call itself a party, referring to its parliamentary past, when it still was merely a part of the diet. A typical case is the Red October of 1917. The Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party could not win the elections in Alexander Kerenski’s democratic Russian Republic and therefore staged a coup with the help of a defeated, marauding army and navy, and in this way established a firm socialistic tyranny. Many liberal democracies are enfeebled by party strife to such an extent that revolutionary organizations can easily seize power, and sometimes the citizenry, for a time, seems happy that chaos has come to an end. In Italy the Marcia su Roma of the Fascists made them the rulers of the country. Mussolini, a socialist of old, had learned the technique of political conquest from his International Socialist friends and, not surprisingly, Fascist Italy was the second European power, after Laborite Britain (and long before the United States) to recognize the Soviet regime. The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master. This happened in Germany in 1932 when no less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted for totalitarian despotism: for every two National Socialists there was one international socialist in the form of a Marxist Communist, and another one in the form of a somewhat less Marxist Social Democrat. Under these circumstances liberal democracy was doomed, since it had no longer a majority in the Reichstag. This development could have been halted only by a military dictatorship (as envisaged by General von Schleicher who was later murdered by the Nazis) or by a restoration of the Hohenzollerns (as planned by Bruning). Yet, within the democratic and constitutional framework, the National Socialists were bound to win. How did the “Nazis” manage to win in this way? The answer is simple: being a mass movement striving for a parliamentary majority, they singled out unpopular minorities (the smaller, the better) and then rallied popular support against them. The National Socialist Workers’ Party was “a popular movement based on exact science” (Hitler’s words), militating against the hated few: the Jews, the nobility, the rich, the clergy, the modern artists, the “intellectuals,” categories frequently overlapping, and finally against the mentally handicapped and the Gypsies. National Socialism was the “legal revolt” of the common man against the uncommon, of the “people” (Volk) against privileged and therefore envied and hated groups. Remember that Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler called their rule “democratic”—demokratiya po novomu, democrazia organizzata, deutsche Demokratie—but they never dared to call it “liberal” in the worldwide (non-American) sense. Carl Schmitt, in his 93rd year, analyzed this evolution in a famous essay entitled “The Legal World Revolution”: this sort of revolution—the German Revolution of 1933—simply comes about through the ballot and can happen in any country where a party pledged to totalitarian rule gains a relative or absolute majority and thus takes over the government “democratically.” Plato gave an account of such a procedure which fits, with the fidelity of a Xerox copy, the constitutional transition in Germany: there is the “popular leader” who takes to heart the interest of the “simple people,” of the “ordinary, decent fellow” against the crafty rich. He is widely acclaimed by the many and builds up a body guard only to protect himself and, of course, the interests of the “people.” In the Name of the People Think of Hitler’s SA and SS and also of the tendency to apply wherever possible the prefix Volk (people): Volkswagen (people’s car), Volksempfänger (people’s radio set), des gesunde Volksempfinden (the healthy sentiments of the people), Volksgericht (people’s law court). Needless to say that this verbal policy continues in the “German Democratic Republic” where we see a “People’s Police,” a “People’s Army,” while Moscow’s satellite states are called “People’s Democracies.” All this implies that in earlier times only the elites had a chance to govern and that now, at long last, the common man is the master of his destiny able to enjoy the good things in life! It matters little that the realities are quite different. A very high-ranking Soviet official recently said to a European prince: “Your ancestors exploited the people, claiming that they ruled by the Grace of God, but we are doing much better, we exploit the people in the name of the people.” Then there is the third way in which a democracy changes into a totalitarian tyranny. The first political analyst who foresaw this hitherto-never-experienced kind of evolution was Alexis de Tocqueville. He drew an exact and frightening picture of our Provider State (wrongly called Welfare State) in the second volume of his Democracy in America, published in 1835; he spoke at length about a form of tyranny which he could only describe, but not name, because it had no historic precedent. Admittedly, it took several generations until Tocqueville’s vision became a reality. He envisaged a democratic government in which nearly all human affairs would be regulated by a mild, “compassionate” but determined government under which the citizens would practice their pursuit of happiness as “timid animals,” losing all initiative and freedom. The Roman Emperors, he said, could direct their wrath against individuals, but control of all forms of life was out of the question under their rule. We have to add that in Tocqueville’s time the technology for such a surveillance and regulation was insufficiently developed. The computer had not been invented and thus his warnings found little echo in the past century. Tocqueville, a genuine liberal and legitimist, had gone to America not only because he was concerned with trends in the United States, but also on account of the electoral victory of Andrew Jackson, the first Democrat in the White House and the man who introduced the highly democratic Spoils System, a genuine invitation to corruption. The Founding Fathers, as Charles Beard has pointed out, hated democracy more than Original Sin. But now a French ideology, only too familiar to Tocqueville, had started to conquer America. This portentous development lured the French aristocrat to the New World where he wanted to observe the global advance of “democratism,” in his opinion and to his dismay bound to penetrate everywhere and to end in either anarchy or the New Tyranny—which he referred to as “democratic despotism.” The road to anarchy is more apt to be taken by South Europeans and South Americans (and it usually terminates in military dictatorships in order to prevent total dissolution), whereas the northern nations, while keeping all democratic appearances, tend to founder in totalitarian welfare bureaucracy. The lack of a common political philosophy is more conducive to the development of outright revolutions in the South where civil wars tend to be “the continuation of parliamentarism with other (and more violent) means,” while the North is rather given to evolutionary processes, to a creeping increase of slavery and a decrease of personal freedom and initiative. This process can be much more paralyzing than a mere personal dictatorship, military or otherwise, without an ideological and totalitarian character. The Franco and Salazar regimes and certain Latin American authoritarian governments, all mellowing with the years, are good examples. Slouching toward Servitude Tocqueville did not tell us just how the gradual change toward totalitarian servitude can come about. But 150 years ago he could not exactly foresee that the parliamentary scene would produce two main types of parties: the Santa Claus parties, predominantly on the Left, and the Tighten-Your-Belt parties, more or less on the Right. The Santa Claus parties, with presents for the many, normally take from some people to give to others: they operate with largesses, to use the term of John Adams. Socialism, whether national or international, will act in the name of “distributive justice,” as well as “social justice” and “progress,” and thus gain popularity. You don’t, after all, shoot Santa Claus. As a result, these parties normally win elections, and politicians who use their slogans are effective vote-getters. The Tighten-Your-Belt parties, if they unexpectedly gain power, generally act more wisely, but they rarely have the courage to undo the policies of the Santa parties. The voting masses, who frequently favor the Santa parties, would retract their support if the Tighten-Your-Belt parties were to act radically and consistently. Profligates are usually more popular than misers. In fact, the Santa Claus parties are rarely utterly defeated, but they sometimes defeat themselves by featuring hopeless candidates or causing political turmoil or economic disaster. A politicized Saint Nicholas is a grim taskmaster. Gifts cannot be distributed without bureaucratic regulation, registration, and regimentation of the entire country. Countless strings are attached to the gifts received from “above.” The State interferes in all domains of human existence—education, health, transportation, communication, entertainment, food, commerce, industry, farming, building, employment, inheritance, social life, birth, and death. There are two aspects to this large-scale interference: statism and egalitarianism, yet they are intrinsically connected since to regiment society perfectly, you must reduce people to an identical level. Thus, a “classless society” becomes the real aim, and every kind of discrimination must come to an end. But, discrimination is intrinsic to a free life, because freedom of will and choice is a characteristic of man and his personality. If I marry Bess instead of Jean, I obviously discriminate against Jean; if I employ Dr. Nishiyama as a teacher of Japanese instead of Dr. O’Hanrahan, I discriminate against the latter, and so forth. (One should not be surprised if an opera house that rejects a 4-foot tall Bambuti singer for the role of Siegfried in Wagner’s “Ring” is accused of racism!) There is, in fact, only either just or unjust discrimination. Yet, egalitarian democracy remains adamant in its totalitarian policy. The popular pastime of modern democracies of punishing the diligent and thrifty, while rewarding the lazy, improvident, and unthrifty, is cultivated via the State, fulfilling a demo-egalitarian program based on a demo-totalitarian ideology. Democratic tyranny, evolving on the sly as a slow and subtle corruption leading to total State control, is thus the third and by no means rarest road to the most modern form of slavery. Author: Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) was an Austrian nobleman and socio-political theorist who described himself as an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism and as an "extreme conservative arch-liberal" or "liberal of the extreme right." Described as "A Walking Book of Knowledge," Kuehnelt-Leddihn had an encyclopedic knowledge of the humanities and was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------